All of the thanks to goes to Carnius for a great mod, I am thankful that you are kind enough to make this for me and the rest of the CNC community, without caring about any kind of pay or reimbersment. I and, I believe the rest of the CNC community really just want to say, THANKS CARNIUS! and thank you for coming to TEF.

Forum Thread
by member
  Posts  
Suggestions for TE 1.5 (Groups : Tiberium Essence Fans : Forum : General Tiberium Essence Ideas : Suggestions for TE 1.5) Post Reply
Thread Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Oct 10 2012, 2:55pm Anchor

After Carnius has shown us the gates, I sure wouldn't mind, as well as most of you, if he managed to have turrets be built on top of GDI's (and only GDI) wall hubs. I've been brainstorming possible ways and was wondering what you guys thought or come up with that'd work best.

1) Have each individual wall hub have an upgrade ability for either of the 3 turrets. I'm thinking with this, since the main building que isn't being used (so you can select multiple hubs and purchase the upgrades when ever you want) plus we have the convenience of them being on the wall, I think it should cost more (maybe $300 - $500 more than the base cost if you got it regularly - which ever is balanced).

2) Build the turret towers regularly from the que, but in addition to being able to place them on the ground like we can now, be able to construct them on top of the wall hubs (think of Scrin's Growth Accelerator being built on tiberium deposit, except obviously the wall hub tower will be in place of the original turret tower, rather than tower on top of tower XD ). When you build it on the hub, though, unlike the Growth Accelerator, the game will auto correct it's placement so that the turret looks nice and evenly placed on it.

I've been playing around with my snow maps and was getting a few ideas that'd greatly add polish to snow maps.

First of all, it'd be nice to have a couple snow covered bridges (at least 1 with and 1 w/o the concrete bridge planks underneith). Whether Carnius decides to use and edit the EA bridges or creates his own is up to him :)

Second, I would really love to see snow flakes animation. This idea was partly inspired by C&C4 (only have seen images) but I don't want it to look just like it is in that game; rather than individually patterned flakes, just having (more realistic) white textured dots would look awesome. How this could be done is by either 1) creating props for WB, similar to "BlueZoneSkyStormA" or "Egypt Water Reflection Skybox", where you can see the snow animation within the given radius (just as long as it's large enough to stretch across large maps). Or 2) have it be like "IonStormSmall" or "RedZoneAmbientFX" where it's basically a trigger for the game to use that animation in the game. I think I like 1 idea better, but what 2 has advantage over 1 is you'd then be able to have areas of the map where it isn't snowing (up high on mtns for example it's snowing, but lower in the valleys it isn't). Anyway, this animation will look awesome and immerse you further in the snow environment ;)

Sorry this is a bit to read, but I wanted to describe and make sure you guys understand exactly how I mean :D What do you guys think of all this?

Edited by: .Mac.

Starfox100
Starfox100 "Inferno Phoenix" field Commander
Oct 10 2012, 3:18pm Anchor

About the turrets.
GDI gets a great advance over the other 2 factions unless:
IMO, IF there are going to be turret on the hubs;

just 1 weak version capable to shoot ground and air. the normal turrets will keep there balance then. also the AI's do not start to look dump as that they can still normally build there turrets.
Other factions defenses going to need a small tune up ten also.
From the Que is not possible since the engine does not allow like in TS to let a turret be placed on a structure. limits can be broken, but this is sure not capable to do.
the snow animation would be nice. i use the "RedZoneAmbientFX" pretty much for that now. (thinking about it... I forgot them totally in my last map!)

--

User Posted Image
May the fox be with you...

GooberTrooper
GooberTrooper Nod Global Operations Commander
Oct 10 2012, 3:19pm Anchor

Those are some pretty good ideas... The Wall w/ Turret upgrade is interesting, but this would result in the Wall Hub being MUCH stronger than the rest of the wall as it'll need to be stronger since it's an actual defense now.

Personally, I just want to see the bridges used in TS back on C&C 3.

As long as I can still see my stuff through it I'm cool with snow falling.

--

"War is timeless, and so are we."~ Forgotten Tick Tank

Oct 10 2012, 3:58pm Anchor
Starfox100 wrote:About the turrets.
GDI gets a great advance over the other 2 factions

GDI would indeed have this benefit, but I thought fitting since Nod already had 2 turrets per hub (and these turrets respawn when destroyed) and Scrin now has some structures that can deal damage to enemies and various units that can create their own ion storms. Or maybe for it to be more fair, GDI's normal turrets would have to be of lesser quality in some way and wall hub turrets would have be normal in terms of FP and health as they currently are now. Or, again, GDI's turrets on wall hubs would cost a bit more than normal.

I would love to see TS bridges back too, GooberTrooper :) Never cared to much for EA's, mostly because neither one of them even fit seamlessly with any of the roads :P

GooberTrooper wrote:As long as I can still see my stuff through it I'm cool with snow falling.

Of course, nothing too much that'd obstruct the view of players ;)

Starfox100 wrote:i use the "RedZoneAmbientFX" pretty much for that now

Hey that's not a bad idea! I'd still prefer an actual "snow" animation sometime, but for now I'll test how this looks ;)

Edit: if this were possible, when an enemy selects to attack the turret on the wall hub, it'll attack just that turret and not the whole section of wall too. When turret is destroyed, it'll leave that wall hub and that can be attacked next if desired (so basically, the health and everything of the turrets will be the same as normal, it'll just be built on top of wall hub - I hope this makes sense). Btw, if any GDI's turrets on the wall hubs get destroyed, the turrets will not be able to respawn Nod style; you'd have to rebuild the turret if you wanted it on the hub again.

Or, even if it is a little bit more work and not quite as clean looking, I suppose we'll be fine to keep GDI's defenses the way they are and sell sections of walls (at least 2 to fit) to build a defense tower in the wall that way :)

Edited by: .Mac.

GoldenArbiter
GoldenArbiter Proud servant of Kane
Oct 10 2012, 7:36pm Anchor

About the turret wallhubs, if you just get rid of the turrets entirely, while maintaining the wall hubs w/ upgrade version, that could actually balance the game a little, as well as bringing GDI a unique flavour that they are sorely missing.

--

"Before enlightenment: Chop wood, fetch water. After enlightenment: Chop wood, fetch water." -zen proverb

Oct 10 2012, 11:12pm Anchor

GoldenArbiter - So you mean get rid of the defenses in the normal building que (excluding the Sonic Tower) and only have them as upgrades on the "conponent wall hub", right? I really like that idea and believe that can certainly be the solution! As long as the AI can be coded to build and upgrade these? Wall hub costs $100 so we'd knock that much off from each turret upgrade too. Now the issue will be, as GooberTrooper pointed out, the health of the hub will be too high because of the wall's HP - So I think it'd work with the upgrade to have the health decreased, down to where it should be when it gets a turret (this, or what I described in my previous post after "Edit:"). Actually it turns out that the defense turrets can take more of a beating than the walls, can anyone else confirm this to be true?.

How will the hubs look if we went this route for GDI? here's ideas: furthest is standard hub with turret, middle is standard 1.5 wall hub with turret, nearest is 1.4 wall hub mixed with standard turret hub.

Tinypic.com

I really like Carnius' design of the non-wall hubs (furthest row) that the turrets are currently on, but I feel they appear a bit too slender to be built within the wall (or maybe they will look just fine and just need to be recolored with a tiny bit more gray so it matches the rest of the wall), but the v1.5 wall hub is kinda bland. So of these, the nearest style (or something similar to that) or the furthest one has my vote :thumbup: :thumbup:

Edited by: .Mac.

Oct 11 2012, 5:52am Anchor

it's a good idea to bring this feature back for GDI (in the way GoldenArbiter suggests), was also wondering if there are plans to bring back Firestorm walls & firestorm generator for GDI, would this be possible? also what about bringing back TS style chainlink fence (which prevents infantry but allows tanks to drive straight over) at a cost of say $30 (instead of $100 for proper walls) for all human factions. I doubt this would be used much but it still might be cool, could be used as a cheap anti-buzzer measure.

GooberTrooper
GooberTrooper Nod Global Operations Commander
Oct 11 2012, 11:32am Anchor
.Mac. wrote:GoldenArbiter - So you mean get rid of the defenses in the normal building que (excluding the Sonic Tower) and only have them as upgrades on the "conponent wall hub", right? I really like that idea and believe that can certainly be the solution! As long as the AI can be coded to build and upgrade these? Wall hub costs $100 so we'd knock that much off from each turret upgrade too. Now the issue will be, as GooberTrooper pointed out, the health of the hub will be too high because of the wall's HP - So I think it'd work with the upgrade to have the health decreased, down to where it should be when it gets a turret (this, or what I described in my previous post after "Edit:"). Actually it turns out that the defense turrets can take more of a beating than the walls, can anyone else confirm this to be true?.

How will the hubs look if we went this route for GDI? here's ideas: furthest is standard hub with turret, middle is standard 1.5 wall hub with turret, nearest is 1.4 wall hub mixed with standard turret hub.

Tinypic.com

I really like Carnius' design of the non-wall hubs (furthest row) that the turrets are currently on, but I feel they appear a bit too slender to be built within the wall (or maybe they will look just fine and just need to be recolored with a tiny bit more gray so it matches the rest of the wall), but the v1.5 wall hub is kinda bland. So of these, the nearest style (or something similar to that) or the furthest one has my vote :thumbup: :thumbup:



They wouldn't be wall hubs anymore, they'd be component towers. If I recall correctly. (And I'm probably not) Component Towers had a tad bit more health than normal walls back in TS, and that should still be the same here.
Personally, I believe this should be a normal wall hub that can be upgraded with defensive attachments, and have the ability to build wall from itself to connect into other wall hubs as it can now.

--

"War is timeless, and so are we."~ Forgotten Tick Tank

Oct 11 2012, 1:07pm Anchor
GooberTrooper wrote:They wouldn't be wall hubs anymore, they'd be component towers. If I recall correctly. (And I'm probably not) Component Towers had a tad bit more health than normal walls back in TS, and that should still be the same here.
Personally, I believe this should be a normal wall hub that can be upgraded with defensive attachments, and have the ability to build wall from itself to connect into other wall hubs as it can now.

I agree with all that. I would especially like it if Carnius starts from his current non-wall turret hub (which has that very nice TS style to it) and edits that a little so it'd fit more with the rest of the wall. Basically, something that looks good standing by itself, as it does now, but would also look good as part of the wall. Then he can scrap the 1.5 wall hub (imo, this looks good just as a "wall hub", but a little too simple looking to be a "component tower" with a turret on it).

Edit: I am now thinking of something that might work even better for gameplay (especially for the AI), working off of GoldenArbiter's idea: Rather than taking out the the 3 defenses from the building que and only have a "component tower" with a choice of 3 defense upgrades and build wall ability, just take out the wall hub from the building que and give the 3 defenses the build wall ability (just as you can currently select a wall hub and continue building wall from it). Except, this may be difficult to build walls and link 2 already placed towers, hmm :confused: unless someone has a way over this obstacle, we'll just need to stay with the previous idea then.

Well I think Carnius has enough ideas about the component towers now, between what we have here and what he probably already had in mind, so let's see what he thinks or does :)

Edited by: .Mac.

GooberTrooper
GooberTrooper Nod Global Operations Commander
Oct 11 2012, 6:53pm Anchor
.Mac. wrote:
GooberTrooper wrote:They wouldn't be wall hubs anymore, they'd be component towers. If I recall correctly. (And I'm probably not) Component Towers had a tad bit more health than normal walls back in TS, and that should still be the same here.
Personally, I believe this should be a normal wall hub that can be upgraded with defensive attachments, and have the ability to build wall from itself to connect into other wall hubs as it can now.

I agree with all that. I would especially like it if Carnius starts from his current non-wall turret hub (which has that very nice TS style to it) and edits that a little so it'd fit more with the rest of the wall. Basically, something that looks good standing by itself, as it does now, but would also look good as part of the wall. Then he can scrap the 1.5 wall hub (imo, this looks good just as a "wall hub", but a little too simple looking to be a "component tower" with a turret on it).

Edit: I am now thinking of something that might work even better for gameplay (especially for the AI), working off of GoldenArbiter's idea: Rather than taking out the the 3 defenses from the building que and only have a "component tower" with a choice of 3 defense upgrades and build wall ability, just take out the wall hub from the building que and give the 3 defenses the build wall ability (just as you can currently select a wall hub and continue building wall from it). Except, this may be difficult to build walls and link 2 already placed towers, hmm :confused: unless someone has a way over this obstacle, we'll just need to stay with the previous idea then.

Well I think Carnius has enough ideas about the component towers now, between what we have here and what he probably already had in mind, so let's see what he thinks or does :)



If I am correct, it automatically links walls to wall hubs when as you build them towards it. Try it some time.

--

"War is timeless, and so are we."~ Forgotten Tick Tank

Smallchange
Smallchange GDI, 101st Airborn Division, Firehawk Pilot
Oct 11 2012, 9:48pm Anchor
GooberTrooper wrote:
If I am correct, it automatically links walls to wall hubs when as you build them towards it. Try it some time.

Yes, yes it does.

Oct 12 2012, 1:51am Anchor

Huh, for some reason I thought you couldn't if you clicked on "wall span" and tried connecting to a hub that way. Maybe I was trying to do it at an accute angle way back when, so just thought it couldn't do that, and didn't bother trying it again since. Anyway, sure enough it sure does - thanks guys!

Oct 12 2012, 10:25am Anchor

what do you guys think to the following:

Mutant Flamethrower Squad: 4 or 5 Mutants with Tib-based Flamethrowers very little armour and moderate to fast speed, would be based on the C&C1 Nod Flamer dude who explodes in a big fireball when killed, engulfing nearby units. obviously heal in Tiberium

or

Looted Flame-Tank: Old style Flame Tank (non-subterranean either Vanilla C&C3 or C&C1 style) with extra armour and Tib-flames. Maybe AA rocket launcher. (would perhaps be in place of the pitbull, but only buildable after you have a com center)

Edited by: M0nkfish

GooberTrooper
GooberTrooper Nod Global Operations Commander
Oct 12 2012, 11:11am Anchor
M0nkfish wrote:what do you guys think to the following:

Mutant Flamethrower Squad: 4 or 5 Mutants with Tib-based Flamethrowers very little armour and moderate to fast speed, would be based on the C&C1 Nod Flamer dude who explodes in a big fireball when killed, engulfing nearby units. obviously heal in Tiberium

or

Looted Flame-Tank: Old style Flame Tank (non-subterranean either Vanilla C&C3 or C&C1 style) with extra armour and Tib-flames. Maybe AA rocket launcher.



I like the idea of Redux'd Tib Dawn flame tank. It should only shoot fireballs, and have extra armor. I'm not too certain about the AA launcher.

--

"War is timeless, and so are we."~ Forgotten Tick Tank

Oct 12 2012, 11:46am Anchor

i'm not too sure bout the AA launcher myself tbh so i agree with you on that just wanted to differentiate it from normal flametank, if it shoots fireballs can they clear garrison?

GooberTrooper
GooberTrooper Nod Global Operations Commander
Oct 12 2012, 7:58pm Anchor
M0nkfish wrote:i'm not too sure bout the AA launcher myself tbh so i agree with you on that just wanted to differentiate it from normal flametank, if it shoots fireballs can they clear garrison?


Sure. Why not?

--

"War is timeless, and so are we."~ Forgotten Tick Tank

Smallchange
Smallchange GDI, 101st Airborn Division, Firehawk Pilot
Oct 13 2012, 9:12pm Anchor

Also, is it just me... or does GDI have a massive lack of structure clearing units?
Maybe there should be an aircraft that clears them (I don't know) just saying that because both other factions have clearing Infantry and vehicles, and GDI just have infantry... (I'm sorry, I can't count the disruptor's ability, because, it can only be used so often, and it's T3...)

So, any clues on how to make GDI's unique? I was thinking maybe have one of the orca bomber's bombing styles be clearing...

GooberTrooper
GooberTrooper Nod Global Operations Commander
Oct 13 2012, 11:46pm Anchor
Smallchange wrote:Also, is it just me... or does GDI have a massive lack of structure clearing units?
Maybe there should be an aircraft that clears them (I don't know) just saying that because both other factions have clearing Infantry and vehicles, and GDI just have infantry... (I'm sorry, I can't count the disruptor's ability, because, it can only be used so often, and it's T3...)

So, any clues on how to make GDI's unique? I was thinking maybe have one of the orca bomber's bombing styles be clearing...



I agree with aircraft being able to clear buildings, but the Orca Bomber could clear SEVERAL buildings in one run. If GDI has some precision strike aircraft, maybe they could get a bunker buster missile? Similar to the Stealth Fighter in Generals Zero Hour?

--

"War is timeless, and so are we."~ Forgotten Tick Tank

Smallchange
Smallchange GDI, 101st Airborn Division, Firehawk Pilot
Oct 14 2012, 12:53am Anchor
GooberTrooper wrote:
Smallchange wrote:Also, is it just me... or does GDI have a massive lack of structure clearing units?
Maybe there should be an aircraft that clears them (I don't know) just saying that because both other factions have clearing Infantry and vehicles, and GDI just have infantry... (I'm sorry, I can't count the disruptor's ability, because, it can only be used so often, and it's T3...)

So, any clues on how to make GDI's unique? I was thinking maybe have one of the orca bomber's bombing styles be clearing...



I agree with aircraft being able to clear buildings, but the Orca Bomber could clear SEVERAL buildings in one run. If GDI has some precision strike aircraft, maybe they could get a bunker buster missile? Similar to the Stealth Fighter in Generals Zero Hour?


Well the OB does have those smart bombs... maybe let them be bunker busters?

Oct 14 2012, 4:21pm Anchor

like was said before when we were discussing the Vertigo, NOD shouldnt have a carpet bomber and GDI shouldnt have a precision bomber otherwise the factions would be too similar, however i think smallchange might be onto something there with his previous post, allow the smartbomb to clear garrison but reduce the amount of actual damage it does to the structure.
Alternatively create a new aircraft for GDI thats just anti-infantry that drops napalm or firebombs or something to clear the garrison

GoldenArbiter
GoldenArbiter Proud servant of Kane
Oct 14 2012, 4:24pm Anchor
M0nkfish wrote:like was said before when we were discussing the Vertigo, NOD shouldnt have a carpet bomber and GDI shouldnt have a precision bomber otherwise the factions would be too similar, however i think smallchange might be onto something there with his previous post, allow the smartbomb to clear garrison but reduce the amount of actual damage it does to the structure.
Alternatively create a new aircraft for GDI thats just anti-infantry that drops napalm or firebombs or something to clear the garrison

*cough cough* A10 from TD. *cough cough*

--

"Before enlightenment: Chop wood, fetch water. After enlightenment: Chop wood, fetch water." -zen proverb

Oct 14 2012, 4:50pm Anchor

Also have an Idea for a new NOD vehicle, something similar might have been mentioned somewhere before but i'm not sure:

NOD Excavator:

Light Vehicle
Weaponless
Prerequisite - Tech Center
Upgrade - Tiberium Power Pack
Cost: $1200

This tracked vehicle looks similar to the subterranean APCs used by NOD in the Second Tiberium War, however its purpose is somewhat different. Slightly smaller than the Harvester this vehicle is neither fast nor stealthed, however when deployed (in a similar manner to the Emissary) this vehicle appears to tunnel beneath the ground leaving in it's place a tunnel entrance with similar health to the NOD Outpost. When two (or more) of these are deployed they can be linked allowing ground units to traverse large sections of map using NOD's subterranean network of passages. Can be used by friendly and hostile units alike. Once deployed it stays deployed permanently but as it's a vehicle this means it can be used outside of ground control. Light armour means this vehicle should be protected by other units. (tunnel entrance points in the direction of the rear of the vehicle when deployed)

Edited by: M0nkfish

GooberTrooper
GooberTrooper Nod Global Operations Commander
Oct 14 2012, 6:27pm Anchor
M0nkfish wrote:like was said before when we were discussing the Vertigo, NOD shouldnt have a carpet bomber and GDI shouldnt have a precision bomber otherwise the factions would be too similar
create a new aircraft for GDI thats just anti-infantry that drops napalm or firebombs or something to clear the garrison

Says shouldn't make factions too similar.
Suggests GDI use napalm.

I found that incredibly amusing.

--

"War is timeless, and so are we."~ Forgotten Tick Tank

Oct 15 2012, 5:00am Anchor

i meant kinda sprayed down from the aircraft like in Vietnam not launched in a nod style, besides it really is quite easy to make so no reason why GDI wouldn't also use it just suggesting that they'd probably use it more infrequently as they are the more "ethical" side in the conflict. i'd really strive to avoid them being similar just struggling to think of anything more anti-infantry than napalm, perhaps computer guided firebombs for clearing structures? or poison gas? however my first choice would be the following, as stated previously

M0nkfish wrote:allow the smartbomb to clear garrison but reduce the amount of actual damage it does to the structure.

Edited by: M0nkfish

GoldenArbiter
GoldenArbiter Proud servant of Kane
Oct 15 2012, 5:01pm Anchor
M0nkfish wrote:i meant kinda sprayed down from the aircraft like in Vietnam not launched in a nod style, besides it really is quite easy to make so no reason why GDI wouldn't also use it just suggesting that they'd probably use it more infrequently as they are the more "ethical" side in the conflict. i'd really strive to avoid them being similar just struggling to think of anything more anti-infantry than napalm, perhaps computer guided firebombs for clearing structures? or poison gas? however my first choice would be the following, as stated previously
M0nkfish wrote:allow the smartbomb to clear garrison but reduce the amount of actual damage it does to the structure.

GDI is future NATO. Napalm and chemical warfare are against the Geneva convention. Even if the enemy ignores it, GDI cannot.

--

"Before enlightenment: Chop wood, fetch water. After enlightenment: Chop wood, fetch water." -zen proverb

Reply to Thread
click to sign in and post

Only registered members can share their thoughts. So come on! Join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) and join in the conversation.